lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2013]   [Sep]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
SubjectRe: [PATCH v7 1/4] spinlock: A new lockref structure for lockless update of refcount
From
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 2:23 PM, Al Viro <viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk> wrote:
>
> How much of that is due to br_write_lock() taken in mntput_no_expire()
> for no good reason? IOW, could you try shmem.c patch I've sent yesterday
> and see how much effect does it have?[1] Basically, we get it grabbed
> exclusive on each final fput() of a struct file created by shmem_file_setup(),
> which is _not_ a rare event. And the only reason for that is not having
> shm_mnt marked long-living, even though its refcount never hits 0...

Does not seem to matter. Still 66% mntput_no_expire, 31% path_init.
And that lg_local_lock() takes 5-6% of CPU, pretty much all of which
is that single xadd instruction that implements the spinlock.

This is on /tmp, which is tmpfs. But I don't see how any of that could
matter. "mntput()" does an unconditional call to mntput_no_expire(),
and mntput_no_expire() does that br_read_lock() unconditionally too.

Note that I'm talking about that "cheap" *read* lock being expensive.
It's the local one, not the global one. So it's not what Waiman saw
with the global lock. This is a local per-cpu thing.

That read-lock is supposed to be very cheap - it's just a per-cpu
spinlock. But it ends up being very expensive for some reason. I'm not
quite sure why - I don't see any lg_global_lock() calls at all, so...

I wonder if there is some false sharing going on. But I don't see that
either, this is the percpu offset map afaik:

000000000000f560 d files_lglock_lock
000000000000f564 d nr_dentry
000000000000f568 d last_ino
000000000000f56c d nr_unused
000000000000f570 d nr_inodes
000000000000f574 d vfsmount_lock_lock
000000000000f580 d bh_accounting

and I don't see anything there that would get cross-cpu accesses, so
there shouldn't be any cacheline bouncing. That's the whole point of
percpu variables, after all.

Odd. What am I missing?

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2013-09-02 00:41    [W:0.129 / U:0.224 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site